Hgeocities.com/fblotz/blog.html/9geocities.com/fblotz/blog.html/9.htmllayedx͍JPNOKtext/htmlgNb.HFri, 10 Jul 2009 23:57:11 GMTpMozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, *͍JN Sea Crest CC&R's
Sea Crest CC&R's
Discussion of Sea Crest CC&R changes
Entry for June 22, 2006
As long as we are going through the all the trouble of getting 75% of the members to agree on CCR changes, we may as well take the time to do it right instead of rushing to adopt some amendments by September.

We should instead take this opportunity to just wipe the slate clean and start over with a new set of CCR's.

What's the big rush to change the CCR's by September? We can vote by mail anytime on new CCR's.

The current CCR's are bloated legal boiler plate from the 1980's that have been further confused by two questionable amendments recorded without the member's approval. Adding more amendments won't fix this.

Adopting entirely new and simpler CCR's would

- Resolve the issue of the questionable amendments by
simply leaving them out of the new CCR’s.

- Resolve the question about state statutes applying to
our HOA due to old CCR's that predate the statutes.

- Avoid attorney fee's for reinventing the wheel by basing our new CCR's on someone else's CCR's that we like.

- Give us CCR's that members actually understand and approve of vs. CCR's that everyone was stuck with by just buying property here.

I have started this blog at www.oocities.org/fblotz/blog.html so members can share their opinions on this issue.

Click on the 'comments' link at the bottom of the blog to add a comment and to see other members' comments. Please enter your name with any comment you add.

George Fosmire - Lot 13
2006-06-22 22:50:45 GMT
Comments (11 total)
Author:Anonymous
George, after reviewing the revised and
circulating CC&Rs, I feel that many of the
changes are only cosmetic in nature and still
leave the CC&R's outdated. I would suggest
that they be completely revised and made to
meet the needs of the homers here at Sea Crest.
Not the current boiler plate that they are.


--John Vogel - Lot 14
2006-06-23 20:35:40 GMT
Author:Anonymous
George:

I think that starting fresh on the CC&Rs makes a lot of sense. Patching something old is really expensive and sometimes creates as many issues as it solves.

If one could start with a blank paper and build CC&Rs with this process:

1. Start with something that is already in place and being used to replicate.
2. Whatever it is should be the minimum to meet statutory requirements. In this instance, simpler is better.
3. Poll SHCA members and determine what is acceptable, BEFORE submission to attorneys. No use paying money for something that won’t pass.

I think it would not only work, but it makes a lot of sense. You are correct that the key is starting with a blank piece of paper.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you on this.

Thanks,

Joe Aleskus - Lot 18
2006-07-22 21:14:25 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I have learned to my sad regret that governing statements for homeowner associations, such as so-called "Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions," are typically low-browed collections of do’s and don'ts, dearly loved by modern-day Pharisees and other control freaks. Here is one of many examples from Sea Crest’s current CC&Rs: "No exterior alteration or addition, however slight, shall be made to any residential unit or premises without proper written consent. . ." Given such absurd overkill, I suggest that such gobble goop be promptly pumped over to H2O&S for treatment apropos to the whole stinking mess. In short, flush 'em!
My perception, based upon a four-year residency, is that within Sea Crest the interests and needs of many individual home/lot owners are relegated to a second-tier status while a dominant clique seeks to advance its own agenda by administering the CC&R's provisions in an arbitrary and capricious manner; conferring special treatment on some, punitive measures on others. If they can’t get their way by using the CC&Rs, they concoct some by-law or special amendment to do so. The system rots!

A prescription for social harmony, offered by the great 19th century frontier philosopher and religious teacher, Joseph Smith, Jr., can be encapsulated in the statement: "Teach correct principles and let people govern themselves." Given correct principles, a community of intelligent, good-hearted people -- such as Sea Crest?? -- should be able to live together harmoniously without the need to resort to Orwellian rules and Draconian management. Using principles such as those found in the HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS at http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/resources/sub/billrights we should be able to create an enlightened, humane, philosophic statement for guiding this tiny community on the central Oregon coast. Two paragraphs should just about do the job – and certainly won’t cost $7500.00 as projected in the Proposed Budget, dated November 1, 2005.

--Richard Crosby
2006-07-26 01:12:34 GMT
Author:George from lot 13
Thanks for your remarks Richard

I’m sorry you just moved out of Sea Crest.

Over the past few years, several people have left Sea Crest because of the homeowners association. Many describe leaving as if “a great weight had been lifted off them”.

This unfortunate type of occurrence continues to this day.

I believe that new, simpler CCRs that were explicitly agreed to by the members will remedy this.

George Fosmire – Lot 13
2006-07-26 18:10:35 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I totally agree with you and volunteer to be a part of a committee to do a rewrite. There has to be a way to communicate all of our concerns without making the rules so hostile.
--rich hertel
<mailto:rhertel@centurytel.net>
2006-07-27 21:48:48 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Referring to Richard Crosby's comment:
Well said!
--Ann Holbrook, Lot 2
2006-07-27 22:58:21 GMT
Author:Anonymous
My own thoughts and opinions on this subject are really best aligned with George Fosmire's. What he has to say and proposed makes a lot of sense. My only concern is the cost of tearing down the CCRs and starting from scratch. The frustration expressed by George and Ann above however serves to underscore the need for change. The only outcome of the CCRs should be the protection of our investment in OUR Sea Crest community and should NEVER serve to drive a neighbor out. I know it is impossible for any governing body to please all its constituents but having said that I also have felt from the onset that the current CCRs were far too restrictive and that the power to administrate them held by too few. It is time for a change and I support George Fosmire's proposal in moving forward. With regard to approving the currently proposed CCRs I would vote against doing so. I would also like to personally thank George for the valuable information and history he provided that will enable us all to make an informed decision.
Terry & Cindy Downs - Lot 5
--Terry Downs
<mailto:terrycindy@cox.net>
2006-07-28 14:04:29 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I will leave the Machiavelli doctrine which denies the relevance of morality in affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in maintaining power and control exactly where it belongs, in the distant past.

I am a proponent of fewer rules rather than more rules and to adopt only those rules that you expect to enforce. This cut and paste set of CC&R's which we currently call ours at Sea Crest are the remnants from other communities who tried to insulate themselves from commom sense.

I believe we can accomplish our goals in a couple of pages of requirements we all agree are most important to protect our investments.

The verbage and legalize I read in the current CC&R's belongs in some other communities covenants.

Pat Holbrook
--Pat Holbrook
<mailto:holbrooks1@charter.net>
2006-07-28 15:26:12 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I initially worked on the CC&R committee and there was no plan of action or even mention of a goal that we were supposed to achieve. This project has been dragging on for months. I agree with George - what's the hurry now? Here we are at the eleventh hour and the Board is cramming to have the CC&R document ready for a vote at the September meeting - and it's not ready. At the recent Board meeting, the chairman of the CC&R committee noted that only 48 of 68 responses had been received (71%) - not enough to even pass the document, let alone if all of those 48 responses had been "I would approve" (which of course they were not). Yet the Board is continuing forward, spending money for an attorney's review. This project needs a major overhaul which should be accomplished through community input. All we need are some basic rules to live by. I agree with Joe Aleskus - why are we reinventing the wheel? Take someone else's document that they have already paid an attorney to draft and tailor it to our needs, not slanted for Board control or any single individual's personal agenda. (I would like to note that at our first CC&R meeting, I suggested that we didn't need to "reinvent the wheel", but this approach was rejected). This would certainly be more cost-effective and still accomplish the updating of this document.
--Vivian Shane
<mailto:vshane000@centurytel.net>
2006-07-29 00:24:49 GMT
Author:Anonymous
George,
this has some appeal for me,
I understand the pressure to finish by September -- the fact that another annual meeting is coming up and "nothing has been accomplished," or "the job is not finished" is motivating people.

But, as you suggest, it may be a "cleaner" more simple, more elegant, less expensive, and better process to start from scratch rather than get lost in a maze of amendments.


I finally got around to answering the questionnaire that was sent out and there are things that need to be addressed - even though I bet if I got a look at the raw data, my answers would be in a minority. That does not bother me a lot - I was given a chance to express my opinions and that is important.

Peace,
Jim

--Jim Abbott
2006-07-30 01:30:53 GMT
Author:Anonymous
CC&R Survey Results - I am a little confused in the survey results. If 48 of the 68 owners responded, shouldn't the survey results for each item add up to 48? The survey in my mind shows that we still have a lot of division. I know that the Board has worked very hard on the CC&Rs update, but maybe from reading all of the comments above, it may be worth taking another look at them before we expend funds for a legal review.
--John Vogel Lot 14
<mailto:jmaru@earthlink.net>
2006-07-30 02:46:13 GMT